S/L 11

10.02.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 28420 of 2023 Srimanta Kanrar Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Ekramul Bari Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin …for the petitioner.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for recalling/withdrawing the impugned observation made in Annexure P2 and a direction upon the respondents to disburse the due pensionary benefits of the petitioner including the arrear pension, gratuity in terms of the last pay actually drawn by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as headmaster in Baniban Jadurberia Vidyapith. In the year 2007, the Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uluberia, Sub- Division Howrah has fixed the pay of the petitioner of Rs. 9,650/-. Subsequently, by an order dated August 20, 2007 the order dated May 23, 2007 was corrected by way of corrigendum.

3. The petitioner retired on September 30, 2023. After the retirement of the petitioner, the authorities have processed the pension papers and it was observed that the pay of the petitioner should have been Rs. 8,275/-in lieu of Rs. 8,550/-. It was further observed that the concerned authorities are requested to review and clarify the present pay statement. Over-drawl of pay may be calculated to take further necessary action all other relevant parts may be corrected accordingly.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved with the said observation on the ground that the petitioner have been granted the scale of pay in the year 2007 and till the date of retirement of the petitioner was getting the said scale. After the retirement of the petitioner, the respondents/authorities have observed that the pays of the petitioner should be Rs. 8,275/- in lieu of Rs. 8,550/- and over-drawl pay may be calculated for taking further necessary action.

5. Mr. Bari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on September 30, 2023. After the retirement, the respondents cannot recover any excess payment made by the authorities to the petitioner. Mr. Bari submits that it is not the case of the authority that the petitioner has drawn the higher pay by misrepresenting the respondents/authorities. He further submits that the petitioner’s pay was fixed as per the order passed by the competent authority. He further submitted that the similar question was arose before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalpita Moitra (Chakladar) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in FMA 777 of 2023 dated November 14, 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court relying upon the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (white Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Hon’ble Division Bench has directed the respondents/authorities to issue the pension order on the basis of the scale of pay lastly drawn without deducting any amount therefrom on account of alleged excess payment due to wrongful and/or mistaken fixation to pay.

6. Mr. Bari submits that the case of the petitioner is also covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the case referred by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra)

7. In spite of service of notice none appears on behalf of the respondents/authorities. Lastly the petitioner has served notice to the respondents/authorities on February 9, 2026 but none appears on behalf of the respondents/authorities.

8. This Court finds that by an order dated May 23, 2007 the authorities have passed the following order:

“With reference to the above the undersigned has to inform him that Srimanta Kancar, M.A., B.Ed. drawing pay as Asstt. Teacher Rs. 8050/- till 31.7.03 in the scale of pay 6000-12000/- i.e. his last date of working as Asstt. Teacher and his pay fixed as Headmaster 2.8550/- w.e.f. 01.8.2003 in the scale of pay 8000-13500/- is now allowed to enjoy two addl. increments in the same scale of pay as per G.O.Ne.185-SE (H), dated 04.5.2000 w.e.f. 20.07.06